I had heard about foreknowledge and planned demolition but never before had I thought of how massive the operation would have to in order to plant the
explosive in WTC 1,2, and 7 and how precise these operations would have to be.

I also agree that Silverstein is not a main player, rather a small fish in a huge pond of people who have benefited from the events. (Including ATS,
but I doubt they are behind the attacks.)

It’d be nice if you guys would put reference threads on here, but they are usually easy enough to find.

First the suggestion. I think it would be a lot better if you could make those podcasts more user friendly. I don't see any way to fast forward or
rewind the mp3s. It would make it a lot easier, and it could bring more people to listen to these podcasts, if you set them up so they are more user
friendly. When the show was about 70% done, I stopped the podcast to see if I could bring back the bar to one of the topics you were discussing, but
it didn't work.

Now the questions. The first question is about wtc7. If it was true that wtc7 fell too symetrically to have been brought down by the weakening of
the steel columns caused by the fire, and instead it explains that supposedly wtc7 was brought down by explosives. How is it possible that the roof
of wtc7 collapsed about 6-8 seconds before the rest of wtc7 collapsed?

In controlled demolitions the whole building is brought down at the same time, we can see in one of the "less shown videos " of the collapse of
wtc7, that wtc7 did not collapse "as symmetrically" as some claim.

The collapse of the roof before the rest of wtc7 collapses, should prove that wtc7 was brought down by fire, and not by "controlled demolition."

My second question is. Why is it that when someone who is an expert on some field that does not relate to the topic being discussed, everyone who
believes what this professor believes immediately claim that "this new expert shows that it is true that wtc7 was brought down by controlled
demolition"?

This professor is an expert in Nuclear fusion, how in the world does that make him an expert on structural engineering?

My favorite topic as well. And don't worry, there are people listening. Because your podcasts are so large, I
download them using a download accelerator/manager outside of iTunes simply because it's much faster. Not sure how many people do this as well, so
that may affect the recorded download figures to a small extent. Also I think the topic is an influence. I'm sure you'll find you'll get a lot more
hits this time with 9-11/WTC7 as the topic.

BTW, the banter between you two is hilarious (but please SO, for Pete's sake let Springer finish a sentence for once!

j/k j/k)

I would podcast a reply if I could, but I'm not set up to be one of the pod people yet. I hope you still have the patience for text - a couple of
quick thoughts regarding some points you raised:

* It's interesting how Jones is being handled by the worldwide MSM. They keep talking about his "new theory", basically attempting to imply that he
is a lone nut. There is never any mention of the enormous 9-11 truth movement that has been teeming just under the radar of the general public for 4
years.

* You mentioned that Silverstein's "pull it" comment has been shown to be used by firefighters, in addition to the terms "pull out" and "pull
back". I still haven't seen anything to support this. If you could link me up to something that shows this, I'd be much obliged. Even on ATS, the
esteemed ZeddicusZulZorander has stated:

www.abovetopsecret.com... (first post) Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
I know 5 firefighters personally as well as 1 EMT/reserve fire-fighter. Not one has ever heard this term either...

Edit: Sorry, meant to say all West Coast too.

And ATS member Lanotom (of Prophet Yahweh fame) investigated it as well:

Originally posted by Lanotom
I have also contacted companies on the west coast just in case it was native to a particular area of the country and the reply is the same, an
astounding no!

So please be a sport and tell me where you get your information.

That's just a couple.

* You mentioned Val's post where she conducted an energy assessment of the fires showing that the buildings could have collapsed from that alone. Did
her calculations indicate that the buildings could have collapsed to the very ground and pulverized all that concrete, or only that the collapse could
have been initiated? Can you link me up to that?

* The above point affects the issue which you raised concerning the logistics of placing all the explosives. If Val has shown that the kinetic energy
of the descending "caps" alone was enough to collapse the buildings, pulverize all the concrete into dust, and expand the huge dust clouds to such a
volume, then such a finding vastly reduces the amount of explosives or other column cutting agents needed. If the principle works for fire, it
works for explosives. i.e. If a collapse at a single point in a tower can destroy it entirely, then cutting agents would also only need to be
placed at a single point, or a couple of points in the buildings, letting gravity do the rest, rather than having to rig up the entire building with
TNT.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Hey guys, I have a suggestion and a couple of questions.

First the suggestion. I think it would be a lot better if you could make those podcasts more user friendly. I don't see any way to fast forward or
rewind the mp3s. It would make it a lot easier, and it could bring more people to listen to these podcasts, if you set them up so they are more user
friendly. When the show was about 70% done, I stopped the podcast to see if I could bring back the bar to one of the topics you were discussing, but
it didn't work.

That should not be a problem, Muaddib.
What are you using to listen to the podcasts? Are you letting them stream? Or downloading? Either way you should be able to stop, rewind, fast
forward, etc. I stream most of the time and can do all of this.

Originally posted by Muaddib
First the suggestion. I think it would be a lot better if you could make those podcasts more user friendly. I don't see any way to fast forward or
rewind the mp3s. It would make it a lot easier, and it could bring more people to listen to these podcasts, if you set them up so they are more user
friendly. When the show was about 70% done, I stopped the podcast to see if I could bring back the bar to one of the topics you were discussing, but
it didn't work.

I'm not sure what "player" you are listening to the mp3's on, but I can fast forward, rewind, stop and pause using Windows Media Player and
iTunes.

I have also used WinAmp and a couple other "players" and I could do the same thing.

Mp3 is very user friendly so again, I'm not sure what your using...but every player I have seen has these options.

Additionally, I have one of the first small mp3 players (when 128mb size was considered HUGE

) and I can do the same with that player too. And yes,
the iPod IS on my xmas list.

That should not be a problem, Muaddib.
What are you using to listen to the podcasts? Are you letting them stream? Or downloading? Either way you should be able to stop, rewind, fast
forward, etc. I stream most of the time and can do all of this.

i have windows media player set up to play videos, mp3s, etc. All I do is click on the link and media player starts.

by Muaddib:
First the suggestion. I think it would be a lot better if you could make those podcasts more user friendly. I don't see any way to fast forward or
rewind the mp3s. It would make it a lot easier, and it could bring more people to listen to these podcasts, if you set them up so they are more user
friendly. When the show was about 70% done, I stopped the podcast to see if I could bring back the bar to one of the topics you were discussing, but
it didn't work.

If you are listening to the file as it is streaming in/down you won't be able to "adjust" the slider forward or back until the entire file has been
received. However, once the entire file has downloaded/streamed you can do so at will.

I would podcast a reply if I could, but I'm not set up to be one of the pod people yet. I hope you still have the patience for text - a couple of
quick thoughts regarding some points you raised:

* It's interesting how Jones' is being handled by the worldwide MSM. They keep talking about his "new theory", basically attempting to imply that
he is a lone nut. There is never any mention of the enormous 9-11 truth movement that has been teeming just under the radar of the general public for
4 years.

It might be a "movement" but whether or not it is "enormous' like you are implying is subject to debate....

Anyways, how exactly does that give any credence to this theory?

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
* You mentioned that Silverstein's "pull it" comment has been shown to be used by firefighters, in addition to the terms "pull out" and "pull
back". I still haven't seen anything to support this. If you could link me up to something that shows this, I'd be much obliged. Even on ATS, the
esteemed ZeddicusZulZorander has stated:

www.abovetopsecret.com... (first post) Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
I know 5 firefighters personally as well as 1 EMT/reserve fire-fighter. Not one has ever heard this term either...

Edit: Sorry, meant to say all West Coast too.

And ATS member Lanotom (of Prophet Yahweh fame) investigated it as well:

Originally posted by Lanotom
I have also contacted companies on the west coast just in case it was native to a particular area of the country and the reply is the same, an
astounding no!

So please be a sport and tell me where you get your information.

That's just a couple.

We also had some members telling us the opposite. Like Skeptic Overlord.

Actually, in the terminology of firefighting and such... "pull it" means to remove the firefighting crews and let the building burn, make no
attempt to save it. It does not mean to pull the building down.

quote: Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Actually, in the terminology of firefighting and such... "pull it" means to remove the firefighting crews and let the building burn, make no attempt
to save it. It does not mean to pull the building down.

*bangs head*

People....read what the wise SO said many many months ago.

I was born into and raised in a family of firefighters.
He is NOT making things up.

Hello, we all watched on TV, the buildings were hit with large aircrafts flying fast, filled with tons of fuel.

The impact of the aircraft damaged the buildings, but the jets fuel was the killer.

The fires started after impact raged out of control, weakened the supports for the floors above and below impact, which failed and we all saw what
happened next.

A fire cheif freind of mine who I motorcycle ride with told me he attened a fire safety seminar in May. The highlight of the seminar was on newer
conctruction multi level structure fires.

He pointed out to me, the next time you are in Wal-Mart or Home Depo, look at the ceilings. Look at the construction, flying girder or flying bridge
with pole assembly. This is pretty much the same setup as the WTC floors were constructed, but with more steel. The seminar noted that when a fire is
in a building with this type of construction, be aware of structure failure.

Fire heats the steal, the steal expands and bends from gravity and breaks away from its mounts. This is what happened at the WTC.

9/11 was a very sad day, I realize that a lot of things happened quickly that day as the world watched, but I just cannot even begin to think that a
city safety inspector or engineer would allow explosives in any building for future demolition while occupied, that just does not happen!

john

Excerpted from above link.

That's just three members who have said this in the past.

But then again, you are not going to listen to what these members and others say, because you have it in your mind that there is no other explanation
and that the wtc were all brought down by explosives...

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
* You mentioned Val's post where she conducted an energy assessment of the fires showing that the buildings could have collapsed from that alone. Did
her calculations indicate that the buildings could have collapsed to the very ground and pulverized all that concrete, or only that the collapse could
have been initiated? Can you link me up to that?

Can you link us to a "reliable" site where they explain, using science and not sci-fi, where they can demonstrate that "the kinetic energy should
have transformed into other forms of energy instead of being so destructive" as you and others keep claiming?....

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
* The above point affects the issue which you raised concerning the logistics of placing all the explosives. If Val has shown that the kinetic energy
of the descending "caps" alone was enough to collapse the buildings, pulverize all the concrete into dust, and expand the huge dust clouds to such a
volume, then such a finding vastly reduces the amount of explosives or other column cutting agents needed. If the principle works for fire, it
works for explosives. i.e. If a collapse at a single point in a tower can destroy it entirely, then cutting agents would also only need to be
placed at a single point, or a couple of points in the buildings, letting gravity do the rest, rather than having to rig up the entire building with
TNT.

Great podcast guys, I enjoyed it immensely.

So in essence you keep saying that even when you are proved wrong that the towers were still brought down by explosives.... got ya.... That's one of
the reasons i decided to stop responding in the latest ATSNN thread on this same topic.

Whether you, and others like you, are proven wrong you still claim that the wtc were brought down by explosives and anyone who "plays around with a
mesh wire" is an expert and should know that there is no way a building should have fallen like the wtc towers did....

You just can't help yourself, can you Muadibb? Why do you have to jump in and start with your sniping and derogatory comments, attempting to turn
every single debate you participate in into a petty, childish exchange? My questions were directed to Skeptic and Springer in response to their
excellent discussion. There was no argument and no sarcasm in my questions; they were honest and upfront, because I want to know the opinion of these
two gentlemen and to track down the posts and sources to which they referred. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thanks for ruining a potentially interesting thread and for adding a sour end-note to what was a great podcast. Kudos to you.

The "Pull it" comment is a common phrase on the EAST Coast with firefighters, the two or three people you quote all mention they investigated
WEST coast. I have been told this by people who are close to firefighters on the East Coast. Beyond that I know nothing about the phrase.

Valhall's work can be found through the ATS google search, I don't know what the url is and I don't remember if it's in the big wtc thread or not.
Sorry about that.

Regarding what she worked out: She calculated whether or not the fires that burned could have been hot enough to degrade/melt the steel enough to
cause it to fail. Understand that to an Engineer (which she is) steel is "melted" when it is no longer able to hold its shape and fails, this has
nothing to do with turning into a liquid like melted ice turning into water for example.

She gathered the exact specs on ALL the steel used as structure material in the buildings and the exact specs on the fuel in the jets, the typical
contents of the offices in the building so she would have both sides of the equation: The material being burned and the fuel that fed the fire.

Based on these calculations she determined that YES the fire would be hot enough, by a fair margin, to "melt the structural components of the
buildings. She did this using strict scientific method and precise calculus.

You ask if the buildings' failing structure would require less explosives to be set.

I don't think it matters. Number one if you wanted to make SURE the buildings fell you wouldn't count on a "maybe"... Maybe the fires and damage
will drop them easier maybe they won't.

Regardless of the amount of explosives it's still one HECK OF JOB even if you cut the amount of explosive in half. These buildings were HUGE and very
well built. The amount of explosives isn't so much the point as the SURVEYS required to select the EXACT points of the structural joints you have to
place the explosives for them to work. Then you have cut the concrete away to place the directional charges against the steel re-bar.
It's the re-bar you have to cut on order to drop the building and the concrete can't be in the way or it will insulate the re-bar from most of the
pressure from the explosive charges.

Add to that, the time it takes to do the calculations to make sure you have enough explosive pointed in the right direction and you have DAYS of work
even if you cut the job in half counting on the impact damage and fires to perform the other half for you.

I will NEVER believe this was done the day of the attacks. Is it possible it was done before the attacks? Sure it is. Is it likely? Not
IMHO. People would have noticed all that work going on. The WTC had foot traffic and a train station in it's lower levels not to mention top of
line security not only employed by the building management but most of the companies who were tenants had security teams on site after the
previous terrorist attack. These security professionals would have been all over people cutting into the support structures and planting
EXPLOSIVES.

Even if they were shown authorization for the work the EXPLOSIVE bit would have raised millions of red flags and the news would've been all over it
seeing as how it was bombed a few years earier. Explosives lashed and taped to the STRUCTURAL SUPPORT COLUMNS just aren't part of typical
maintenance. You know?

It's a HUGE mystery to me now that we have solid evidence that there was molten steel present at the site after 9/11. That's
the big deal in my mind.

Mauddib: There really is no reason for the rancor and acidic words here my man. If WCIP isn't convinced, ridicule and sarcastic
degridation certainly isn't going to change his mind. If frustration has got the better of you, it's best to move on to a different topic IMHO.

But on to your points...

Professor Jones does not claim to be an expert in structural engineering but he for dam sure an expert in mathematics, thermodynamics, and "stuff
melting".

Aditionally he is not "claiming anything" or declaring anything, all he is doing is presenting a hypothesis that he thinks should be
proven or disproven using the scientific method. I agree with him 100% on that point.

I do not "buy" his hypothesis at all but I certainly agree it has opened a whole new can of worms surrounding the collapse of the buildings ONLY
because of the molten steel issue.

I am NOT impressed with the similarity between the way WTC 7 fell and the videos of the "imploded buildings". That just isn't enough for me to get
worked up over. The molten steel certainly is. There are very FEW processes that can cause the heat required to melt steel to liquid like that. The
explosive thermite is among the most common other than smelting.

Well I hope this explains my perspective a little better and I am going to try to track down Prof. Jones after the holiday and see if he'll come on
AboveTopSecret.com and share his FULL side of the story.

Originally posted by Springer
The "Pull it" comment is a common phrase on the EAST Coast with firefighters, the two or three people you quote all mention they investigated
WEST coast. I have been told this by people who are close to firefighters on the East Coast. Beyond that I know nothing about the phrase.

Thanks for the clarification.

Regarding what she worked out: She calculated whether or not the fires that burned could have been hot enough to degrade/melt the steel enough
to cause it to fail.
[...]
Based on these calculations she determined that YES the fire would be hot enough, by a fair margin, to "melt the structural components of the
buildings. She did this using strict scientific method and precise calculus.

I'm pretty sure I've seen the post you reference quite a while back, and it blew me away. I believe it's in a thread entitled "Bombs in the
Towers: Conspiracy Fact" or something similar. That post which I read detailed the energy available to initiate a collapse. But this is why I was
asking whether she had made a post showing calculations of the energy sources and sinks of the collapse and destruction of a tower itself. The
initiation and the ensuing collapse are, in effect, two separate events.

There have been papers published assessing the energy output of the collapses, which appear to show that the potential energy contained in one cap
would be insufficient to a) destroy a tower to it's very foundation, breaking all those millions of assembly connections, welds and bolts, b)
pulverize all that concrete into median 10 micron-sized dust, and c) expand the pyroclastic dust cloud to that volume and at that speed. All of these
mechanical actions require energy, and if there's not enough energy available, the "work" simply can't be done. This is why demolition of
buildings severs the columns at multiple points throughout a structure and particularly at the base, because merely severing the top sections to make
a "crushing cap" is insufficient to destroy the building, and a partial collapse will result.

One paper, by Jim Hoffman, states a 10-fold disparity (!) between the input
and output energies of the collapse, with the input being the PE not only of the cap, the planes and the fires, but also of the entire
building. (Remember, we're talking about the collapse itself here, not the collapse initiation.) It should be noted though, that one variable
which may account for Hoffman's cited energy deficit is the RH of the concrete, which can vary by age of the concrete, efficiency of the
air-conditioning, cement type, ambient humidity on the day, and other factors.

Why am I harping on about this point? Because if the total PE in a cap, or even the entire building for that matter, is insufficient to produce the
effects observed, then that energy has to have come from somewhere else. And the question is, where? Secondly, if it can be shown that one cap
was indeed enough to destroy a tower, when combined with melting the foundation columns as would be essential to produce such total collapses and as
is implied by the presence of molten steel, then that helps with narrowing down both the technique by which the buildings could have been brought
down, and the extent of the logistics problem. If Val has the time and the inclination, it would be awesome if she could put her
more-than-considerable talents into assessing this aspect, because this is one of the pivotal arguments raging in the 9-11 truth movement today, and
with Val on board, ATS is definitely up to the challenge.

Regardless of the amount of explosives it's still one HECK OF JOB even if you cut the amount of explosive in half. These buildings were HUGE
and very well built. The amount of explosives isn't so much the point as the SURVEYS required to select the EXACT points of the structural joints you
have to place the explosives for them to work. Then you have cut the concrete away to place the directional charges against the steel
re-bar. It's the re-bar you have to cut on order to drop the building and the concrete can't be in the way or it will insulate the re-bar from most
of the pressure from the explosive charges.

It should be noted here that the columns in the towers were not steel-reinforced concrete, they were all steel. And the majority of the columns that
were not able to be directly accessed were covered simply by drywall.

Is it possible it was done before the attacks? Sure it is. Is it likely? Not IMHO. People would have noticed all that work going
on....security professionals would have been all over people cutting into the support structures and planting EXPLOSIVES.

Again, this comes back to the importance of the method and the logistics issues. Second to this is the fact that Silverstein started
changing security and maintenance personnel as soon as he took over, and the fact that Marvin Bush was a director (I think it was) of the company in
charge of the complex security.

It's a HUGE mystery to me now that we have solid evidence that there was molten steel present at the site after 9/11.
That's the big deal in my mind.

I completely agree. This is the smoking gun that there is simply no debating. Below is the thermal imaging and data of the site 2 weeks after the
collapses. A real eye-opener:

Below is a link to an excellent and extremely thorough paper which you may be interested in. It comprises a quantitative and mathematical analysis of
the viability of thermite being used to destroy the base columns in the twin towers. www.physics911.net...

Anyway, just my $0.02

Thank you for your responses. It's nice to have a calm, rational discussion assessing the possibilities for once without the antagonism and ad
hominem attacks. And thanks again to you and SO for a great podcast.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.